Commonwealth Real Estate Services v. Padilla, 149 Wash. App. 757 (2009)

Citation: Commonwealth Real Estate Services v. Padilla, 149 Wash. App. 757 (2009)
Parent Document: Commonwealth Real Estate Services v. Padilla, 149 Wash. App. 757 (2009)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2009-04-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4946193/commonwealth-real-estate-servic... ↗

Full Text

919 chars

¶12 CR 41(b)(3) provides that in a bench trial, the court may grant a motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiff’s case either as a matter of law or a matter of fact. Under CR 41(b)(3), dismissal is proper “if there is no evidence, or reasonable inferences therefrom, that would support a verdict for the plaintiff.” Willis v. Simpson Inv. Co., 79 Wn. App. 405, 410, 902 P.2d 1263 (1995). If the trial court dismisses the case as a matter of law after the plaintiff rests, “review is de novo and the question on appeal is whether the plaintiff presented a prima facie case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. But if the trial court acts as a fact-finder, appellate review is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and whether the findings support its conclusions of law.” In re Dependency of Schermer, 161 Wn.2d 927, 939-40, 169 P.3d 452 (2007).

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text